Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

Good articles are articles that many people find to be better than other articles. Good articles have criteria/requirements that the article needs to have. Read Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles for information about the criteria.

This page is to talk about articles to see if they meet Good Article criteria. When an article is posted here, it should have the {{pgood}} tag put on it. This will put the article in Category:Proposed good articles.

Articles which are accepted by the community as good articles will have their {{pgood}} tag replaced with {{good}}. They are also shown on Wikipedia:Good articles and are put in Category:Good articles. Articles which are not accepted by the community as good articles have their {{good}} tag removed.

Articles that are above the good article criteria can be nominated to be a "very good article" at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles.

This tool can be used to find the size of an article.

If you choose to participate in the discussion process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have read the criteria and the article in question. You should prepare to completely explain the reasons for your comments. This process should not be taken lightly. If there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may have their privilege to participate taken away.

Proposals for good articles

To propose an article for Good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. You may have one nomination open at a time only. Proposals run for three weeks. After this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion.

This is not a vote, so please do not use comments such as "Support" or "Oppose" etc.

=== Article name ===
:{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be a GA. ~~~~

Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have been working on making this article into GA status. He is a currently active politician but that hasn't stopped me with Bernie Sanders. I vow to keep the page updated with recent events. The article is well-sourced and has all the needed information to inform the readers of this SEW page of Corbyn's career. Any suggestions as to add sources or any simplifying of words are greatly welcomed. I've sourced everything appropriately and each section is filled with the proper content with simplification. Thank you. --08:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)TDKR Chicago 101 (talk)

Hebrew calendar

Hebrew calendar (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Expanded on article to give what I believe is about as complete a picture as a lay person would want. Article is reasonably sourced, and to the best of my ability is in Simple English. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing else to add at this point of time. Perhaps someone else wants to take a look, too? Chenzw  Talk  16:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• This article is much the best of the ones on offer at present. I would make just two suggestions:

Change from BCE/CE to BC/AD because the latter is overwhelmingly better known to non-academic readers round the world. The systems are optional on our pages, so you do have a choice.

Consider the history section, which seems to me to be rather involved and less readable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

First, thanks to Chenzw for all your help.

Second, thanks to Mac for your kind words and suggestions. I will have a closer look at the history section, which already existed and which I did not work on, in the next few days. As for CE/AD, there is a strong preference for use of BCE/CE in Judaism-related articles because BC and AD both have specifically Christian overtones. (See Common Era.) What I would appreciate your advice on, though, is the following: right now, "CE" simply has a link: CE. Would it be better to replace that with a more explanatory footnote, viz., "CE year numbers are the same as AD year numbers"? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Usually we let the links do the work. That's what they are there for. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

My feeling, too. But it was worth asking. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross: Have a look now, and tell me if it works better. I fully understand that there are a couple of redlinks in this article, and I will commit to creating those pages when this is finished. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Metonic cycle has been created. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Chenzw, Macdonald-ross and anyone else interested: All red links in the body text have now been turned blue. (There are a couple of red links left in the table, which I will get to in due course.) Do people think this is promotable now? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think this is about good to be promoted, but I want to raise one issue. There is a mention of the Hebrews receiving their first commandment "in Biblical times". That might make some think it was about 100 AD, when the full bible was assembled. I'm sure the Torah is much older, and I guess 500 BC would be closer. I wonder if there is a phrasing which is not so likely to be misread. One way would be to rephrase along the lines of "the first commandment to the Hebrews is reported in Genesis..." (etc). Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a great point, Mac. Christians tend to think of AD 100 as "Biblical times"; Jews tend to think of 2500–500 BC as "Biblical times". I'll fix that. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, IMO a disinterested admin could now promote this to GA. Well done. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Indeed, there has been a lull in editor activity lately, and I am glad that we finally have some more activity over here at PGA; thank you StevenJ81 for your patience and determination throughout this nomination! Chenzw  Talk  14:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both for your help and support! (When I am back from Wikibreak, perhaps you can tell me what further work would be needed to move it to VGA.) StevenJ81 (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Y Given no objections after 3 weeks, I am closing this as promoted. Chenzw  Talk  05:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I took the liberty of updating the badge at Wikidata. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Esperanto

Esperanto (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

In this article they can find a lot of information about history, today's use and grammar of this constructed language. It is also well illustrated with multimedia files and naturally referenced with information from external sources. Venca24 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• One reason why articles on artificial languages are unconvincing is that they are so obviously written in favour of the particular system, with no balance and no genuine discussion of their many weaknesses. This article, which leans heavily on the En wiki version, is absolutely typical of the type. Too POV for me, Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • If there is more needed then only make the section "Criticism" better, can you say what these "too POV" are for that they can be neutralised? --Venca24 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Please tell what exactly should be better in the article. Any subject can get a good article, no subject is "too dangerous" for it. Just because you do not like artificial languages does not mean that there cannot be a neutral description of such a language. Czech, Slovak and Spanish Wikipedias have a good/featured article about Esperanto, so several Wikipedia communities have already got to this level. There are also descriptions of Esperanto by people who do not speak it, such as director Sam Green and neutral comparsions of various artificial languages by scientists such as Arika Okrent. This article has used parts from the article on Czech Wikipedia, which has been considered featured article with no disputes on neutrality for 8 years now. (CoI: I speak Esperanto and write about it for Wikipedia, but I also speak about it to journalists quite often, so I can tell facts and figures from opinions and convictions.) --Blahma (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Venca24: Have you received any other reviews? Leaning towards closing as not promoted; it's been over three months since you nominated. Seattle (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything I received is on this page. In fact I don't see any constraints on time in the guideline about GA (maybe it is in any other place or it is a custom at this WP). According to the guideline the proposal needs only anyone to start the voting or saying what are the weak parts of the article (which requirements the article doesn't fill). I think I can't start the voting as I am the proposer and one of the main contributors of the article (at least in recent time).

Maybe there is not so many people regarding the GA proposals, because some other proposals have also several months long gap in their discussion. :-) --Venca24 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• The article fails because it is so clearly POV. The editor is wholeheartedly an advocate, and that is the root of the problem. There are arguments against artificial languages in general, and arguments against Esperanto in particular. An article cannot be one-sided and be a GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Macdonald-ross: Can you name the POV in the article, please? So can I or someone other correct the article and make it more neutral. In the section Criticism are listed the most widespread arguments against Esperanto and there are also references to articles with more detail criticism on the language (so you can get inspiration to make the article better). --Venca24 (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think the article is ready yet. However, for the most part, I do not agree with Mac that the article is fatally POV. Here are my concerns:
  1. The language is really not simple enough yet, IMO. The vocabulary (mostly) is, but there are still many complex and compound-complex sentences. We try to minimize those when we can.
  2. Some of the grammar and usage is not quite correct yet.
  3. I would reorganize some—for example, I'd put Goals of the Esperanto Movement before Esperanto Culture, because it's actually a good bridge between History and the rest.
  4. The article is mildly POV. I think the section on Criticism is written in too dismissive a way; the POV of that section is that the criticism is undeserved. Most of the rest of the article is written reasonably neutrally, though it would be worth adding in references to failures in Esperanto goals and culture.

I would be happy to help out with items 1–4 (next week at earliest, not now). I think others with more knowledge need to address #5. Make no mistake–item #5 must be fixed if this article is to have a chance. To that extent I agree with Mac. But I don't think the article is fatally flawed. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Exo

Exo (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has not been GA in any Wikipedia article. I think it would be a good opportunity to nominate as it is extensive, it contains references and is a well known group. SuZumiya (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Issues:

• It needs simplifying (compound sentences need to be divided; complex words need to be linked, replaced, or explained; it has the wrong heading for external links/other websites). Some paragraphs could also be divided for better readability.
• All substantive edits have been by the same editor.
• The awards and nominations paragraph consists of only a {{main page}} template that links to a nonexistent page. Red links are allowed, but it doesn't help when a red link in a template is the only thing in a paragraph that way.
• It could use some more links.
• It needs copy editing in some places. For example, some sentences don't make sense.

In short, I think work is needed to meet requirements 6 and 8, and we could do a better job of meeting #3 (the multiple editors part). --Auntof6 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• This article is almost unreadable, and comes nowhere near the standard of our regular articles. I don't regard it as a suitable candidate for GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Related pages

• Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles
• Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles
• Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles
• Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion